This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
On October 30, 2008, the Defendant was stopped by officers after his vehicle changed lanes and nearly struck a police vehicle. During the stop, officers observed that the vehicle's registration sticker had been altered by gluing a portion of a different sticker over the original. The Defendant admitted knowledge of the alteration. Additionally, a glass pipe, identified as drug paraphernalia, was found near the Defendant, who was seen stepping on it in an apparent attempt to conceal it (paras headnotes, 1-2, 4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted of driving while license suspended or revoked, possession of drug paraphernalia, and false evidence of title and registration.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for false evidence of title and registration and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and agreed to a limited remand for correction of the sentence.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for false evidence of title and registration?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions and remanded the case for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment and order to reflect the correct statutory provision violated.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Robles JJ. concurring):
-
The Court applied the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence, which requires determining whether substantial evidence exists to support a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
-
Regarding the conviction for false evidence of title and registration, the Court found that the evidence, including the altered registration sticker and the Defendant’s admission of knowledge, supported the jury’s conclusion that the Defendant used the altered sticker with fraudulent intent. The jury could reasonably infer intent to deceive based on the circumstances, even if the Defendant did not personally alter the sticker.
-
For the conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia, the Court held that the Defendant’s proximity to the glass pipe, his act of stepping on it, and witness testimony provided sufficient evidence of constructive possession and intent to use the pipe for ingesting a controlled substance. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant’s denial of ownership and infer intent from the evidence presented.
-
The Court noted a clerical error in the judgment, which incorrectly cited the statutory provision violated. It remanded the case for correction to reflect the proper provision, Section 66-8-3(D).